4 ms·

> Then the entire thing spiraled out of control: people not only railed against TTIP but took their opposition and looked for similar contracts and found CETA.

> Then the entire thing spiraled out of control: people not only railed against TTIP but took their opposition and looked for similar contracts and found CETA. Since both are trade agreements there is naturally a lot of common ground between them. The subtleties where quickly lost. Where the initial arguments against TTIP were food standards, public services and intransparent ISDS courts many of the critics failed to realize that CETA fundamentally was a different beast. CETA has ISDS as well, and if only on that point alone, CETA is objectionable. This argument comes off as disingenuous, the similarities between the deals are not imagined. ISDS isn't even the only similarity; CETA also contained objectionable new copyright provisions (though apparently those are mostly gone now), for example.

the_mitsuhiko 10y ago
> CETA has ISDS as well, and if only on that point alone, CETA is objectionable. Author here: that is not disputed. However the ISDS in CETA is a permanent tribunal where both Canada and Europe elect lawyers equally. The processes also require transparency and there is an appeal process. None of that was in the original draft of it and has been added over time as a response to criticism.
- TazeTSchnitzel 10y ago
  Well, that might be a slight improvement, but it's still ISDS. The fundamental problem with ISDS is not its lack of transparency, but that it allows corporations to sue governments for domestic policy changes in the first place.
  - the_mitsuhiko 10y ago
    > Well, that might be a slight improvement, but it's still ISDS. There is nothing wrong with ISDS.
    - TazeTSchnitzel 10y ago
      In that case, can you explain how Canadian and European legal systems are so insufficient for seeking legal recourse for legitimate grievances that companies need to be able to sue either government in international tribunals? Because that's ostensibly the argument for ISDS, and I don't see how it applies to Western liberal democracies with properly functioning courts. The argument against is cases like the Philip Morris v. Uruguay case. Why couldn't the same happen under CETA? If you don't see ISDS itself as objectionable, it's not surprising that you disagree with the argument against CETA, but please try to understand where opponents are coming from.
      - the_mitsuhiko 10y ago
        > In that case, can you explain how Canadian and European legal systems are insufficient for seeking legal recourse for legitimate grievances? That's the wrong question to ask even though there is a very simple answer to it: that the state is not impartial. The better question to ask is why ISDS exists in the first place and this is something that the states and governments came up with and not the companies. > The argument against is cases like the Philip Morris v. Uruguay case. Why couldn't the same happen under CETA? Phillip Morris lost the case. Cases should be judged by the outcome and not by the pure fact that it takes place. You can drag someone in front of a court of a lot of things. As far as CETA goes you can only claim unfair discrimination and a whole bunch of things are outright excluded. In particular an investor has very bad cards due to both the health and ethics aspects of CETA. In any case that is all super irrelevant anyways as countries already signed a ton of BITs that include significantly inferior ISDS provisions. The company in question is currently dragging a few countries in front of ISDS courts without the help or need of CETA. ISDS would have to be discussed separately and not in the context of CETA. As far as ISDS goes, CETA is an improvement over prior contracts. If you want to replace ISDS then companies will just walk up the local justice systems which will not be any cheaper or more efficient and that might go all the way up to the supreme court or the highest european courts. > If you don't see ISDS itself as objectionable I understand the arguments against it very well but instead of throwing the entire concept away I find it much more reasonable to attack the individual points of criticism and that's what CETA was about. If you want to kill the entire concept then we just open up a new hole that will need filling.
  - friendlygrammar 10y ago
    Every single trade agreement has something like ISDS and the entire purpose of these courts is to make sure people follow the agreement as it was written. It's not like you will be invaded if you break the rules of the agreement and ISDS rules against you, you will simply be kicked out if you don't follow the rules. Why do morons spread fear about this shit?
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - TazeTSchnitzel 10y ago
      > Every single trade agreement has something like ISDS and the entire purpose of these courts is to make sure people follow the agreement as it was written. Huh? ISDS isn't about enforcing the trade deal (which might also go to arbitration), it's a separate issue.
    - slim 10y ago
      Because you have elected legislators and permanent courts to apply national laws for a reason. Bypassing democracy with pseudo-courts and pseudo-legislation and pretending it is ok is insulting to the citizens.
makomk 10y ago
More broadly speaking, this is a reason why it's not necessarily irrational or unreasonable to continue to believe old arguments - the effort required to claim that yes, things have changed and the old arguments are therefore invalid is so disproportionately small compared to the effort required to confirm the changes are in fact inadequate or non-existent.

the_mitsuhiko 10y ago

> CETA has ISDS as well, and if only on that point alone, CETA is objectionable. Author here: that is not disputed. However the ISDS in CETA is a permanent tribunal where both Canada and Europe elect lawyers equally. The processes also require transparency and there is an appeal process. None of that was in the original draft of it and has been added over time as a response to criticism.

TazeTSchnitzel 10y ago
Well, that might be a slight improvement, but it's still ISDS. The fundamental problem with ISDS is not its lack of transparency, but that it allows corporations to sue governments for domestic policy changes in the first place.
- the_mitsuhiko 10y ago
  > Well, that might be a slight improvement, but it's still ISDS. There is nothing wrong with ISDS.
  - TazeTSchnitzel 10y ago
    In that case, can you explain how Canadian and European legal systems are so insufficient for seeking legal recourse for legitimate grievances that companies need to be able to sue either government in international tribunals? Because that's ostensibly the argument for ISDS, and I don't see how it applies to Western liberal democracies with properly functioning courts. The argument against is cases like the Philip Morris v. Uruguay case. Why couldn't the same happen under CETA? If you don't see ISDS itself as objectionable, it's not surprising that you disagree with the argument against CETA, but please try to understand where opponents are coming from.
    - the_mitsuhiko 10y ago
      > In that case, can you explain how Canadian and European legal systems are insufficient for seeking legal recourse for legitimate grievances? That's the wrong question to ask even though there is a very simple answer to it: that the state is not impartial. The better question to ask is why ISDS exists in the first place and this is something that the states and governments came up with and not the companies. > The argument against is cases like the Philip Morris v. Uruguay case. Why couldn't the same happen under CETA? Phillip Morris lost the case. Cases should be judged by the outcome and not by the pure fact that it takes place. You can drag someone in front of a court of a lot of things. As far as CETA goes you can only claim unfair discrimination and a whole bunch of things are outright excluded. In particular an investor has very bad cards due to both the health and ethics aspects of CETA. In any case that is all super irrelevant anyways as countries already signed a ton of BITs that include significantly inferior ISDS provisions. The company in question is currently dragging a few countries in front of ISDS courts without the help or need of CETA. ISDS would have to be discussed separately and not in the context of CETA. As far as ISDS goes, CETA is an improvement over prior contracts. If you want to replace ISDS then companies will just walk up the local justice systems which will not be any cheaper or more efficient and that might go all the way up to the supreme court or the highest european courts. > If you don't see ISDS itself as objectionable I understand the arguments against it very well but instead of throwing the entire concept away I find it much more reasonable to attack the individual points of criticism and that's what CETA was about. If you want to kill the entire concept then we just open up a new hole that will need filling.
- friendlygrammar 10y ago
  Every single trade agreement has something like ISDS and the entire purpose of these courts is to make sure people follow the agreement as it was written. It's not like you will be invaded if you break the rules of the agreement and ISDS rules against you, you will simply be kicked out if you don't follow the rules. Why do morons spread fear about this shit?
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - TazeTSchnitzel 10y ago
    > Every single trade agreement has something like ISDS and the entire purpose of these courts is to make sure people follow the agreement as it was written. Huh? ISDS isn't about enforcing the trade deal (which might also go to arbitration), it's a separate issue.
  - slim 10y ago
    Because you have elected legislators and permanent courts to apply national laws for a reason. Bypassing democracy with pseudo-courts and pseudo-legislation and pretending it is ok is insulting to the citizens.

makomk 10y ago

More broadly speaking, this is a reason why it's not necessarily irrational or unreasonable to continue to believe old arguments - the effort required to claim that yes, things have changed and the old arguments are therefore invalid is so disproportionately small compared to the effort required to confirm the changes are in fact inadequate or non-existent.